Dear sirs,
Here is the full quote of clause 6.8.: "In case the price change is related to the difference between the last instrument price before the market closing and the first instrument price at the opening of the market, or is connected with the news release, and increases profits by more than 10% of the Equity, the Company reserves the right to adjust financial result of such transactions to an amount proportional to the difference in the prices indicated above by means of funds deduction with a following comment. In some cases, the Company can set limits of less than 10% of total deposit to the minimum profit change". This clause is contained in Public Offer Agreement which must be accepted by each customer in order to open trading account. So, we reckon that it has been read. But nobody reads it. And now, we can see the result of negligence and unwillingness to know the important terms of work. I wonder, why do they start blame the company instead of spend a little time and finally read the agreement? I understand, it was not pleasant surprise for Rajivxxx to discover that such terms had been applyed to his trade. But if he doesn't like the agreement why he accepted it? Ok, get to the point. There was a situation on Rajivxxx's trading account which was considered as suitable for clause 6.8 applying. The company had applyed this clause so all is correct.
Dear sirs,
Here is the full quote of clause 6.8.: "In case the price change is related to the difference between the last instrument price before the market closing and the first instrument price at the opening of the market, or is connected with the news release, and increases profits by more than 10% of the Equity, the Company reserves the right to adjust financial result of such transactions to an amount proportional to the difference in the prices indicated above by means of funds deduction with a following comment. In some cases, the Company can set limits of less than 10% of total deposit to the minimum profit change". This clause is contained in Public Offer Agreement which must be accepted by each customer in order to open trading account. So, we reckon that it has been read. But nobody reads it. And now, we can see the result of negligence and unwillingness to know the important terms of work. I wonder, why do they start blame the company instead of spend a little time and finally read the agreement? I understand, it was not pleasant surprise for Rajivxxx to discover that such terms had been applyed to his trade. But if he doesn't like the agreement why he accepted it? Ok, get to the point. There was a situation on Rajivxxx's trading account which was considered as suitable for clause 6.8 applying. The company had applyed this clause so all is correct.
So they've got a 2 minute rule too. That proves LiteForex is a market maker beyond any possible doubt.
What I don't get is that if LF already bans trades under 2 minutes, why wouldn't they just ban news trading. That's a simple and straightforward rule that is easy to understand.
Instead, LiteForex permits news traders to lose any amount, but restrict the profit to 10% of the account - AND allow themselves to decide that they can grab more if 10% of the account is too much.
I'm all for brokers having Terms of Service, Terms & Conditions, etc., as long as those terms are clearly written and are fair. Rules allowing profits to be cancelled as being "too much profit" and that are vaguely written don't qualify for this in my book.
When this goes to a vote, I won't have to spend a lot of time to make my decision.